lemmy the lurch
Mongoose
Can anybody let me know how detailed the Scouts system generation is? Is it in the same syle as the expanded CT Book 6?
Scouts system generation
- Thread starter lemmy the lurch
- Start date
Gruffty the Hiver
Banded Mongoose
Matt has previously said that Scout wouldn't contain any system-gen material - that's going to be in a separate book 
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
Loz, I want to compliment you on the semi-detailed system that you did come up with. You did a good job of balancing lack of detail with giving us SOMETHING.
The roll 2D High/Low thing for figuring out planets in the habitable zone is genius! I hope that keep that for the Worldbuilders book. I like it a lot better than the fixed orbits that CT used.
HOWEVER. In the design sequence, you say to place all of the GG in the system until you reach the number from the basic generation. Unfortunately, basic UWP generation in the TMB doesn't tell you how many GG you get, only that you have at least one (or don't have any). There should probably be a 2D table to determine the number of GG in a system.
Nice scouty stuff, nice ships and nice career details.
Overall, I highly recommend this book for people running scout or former scout characters.
The roll 2D High/Low thing for figuring out planets in the habitable zone is genius! I hope that keep that for the Worldbuilders book. I like it a lot better than the fixed orbits that CT used.
HOWEVER. In the design sequence, you say to place all of the GG in the system until you reach the number from the basic generation. Unfortunately, basic UWP generation in the TMB doesn't tell you how many GG you get, only that you have at least one (or don't have any). There should probably be a 2D table to determine the number of GG in a system.
Nice scouty stuff, nice ships and nice career details.
Overall, I highly recommend this book for people running scout or former scout characters.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
[Loz -hope you don't mind me chiming in about bits that I did ].....You are welcome ! It's still not perfect, but it really seems to fly well for quick roll-ups.
The GG thingie is indeed not specified -I fear it's caused by OTRI* syndrome.
Given that Sol has 4, and it looks like they are common where there are any, I'd roll 1d6, with a max of 1/2 total orbits generated.
Plus, I never did update the planet type table - it works fine as is, but for a bit more sensibility, limit the iceball results to the outer zone.
That said, glad you like it !
*old traveller rules interference
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
Iceballs in the outer zone is an obvious thing, no big deal.
So, CaptainJack was involved in this little project.
Hope EDG doesn't hear about that! :twisted:
So, CaptainJack was involved in this little project.
Hope EDG doesn't hear about that! :twisted:
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
EDG said:captainjack23 said:
Let's just say that reality is a lot more complicated than that.
Absolutely. The suggestion is entirely driven by gameplay, and the needs of the system - and some nod to the fact that systems with gas giants may have more than one....balanced by the fact that a system with nothing but gas giants is probably likely, but less useful for Traveller.
FWIW, I gave up on the fixed orbits, too, quite some time ago. This system only focuses on orbits with planets or belts, with no info about their actual spacing beyond sequence.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Loz said:
Thanks Loz !
- not only was it lots of fun to work with you, but I got to be the hobbyist -ie didn't have to do most of the hard parts of manuscript prep. Cheers !
lemmy the lurch
Mongoose
Loz said:
thanks for getting back to me it seems like i will have to wait for the worldbuilders book for detailed system/planet creation. I just hope its not too long in gestation .
EDG said:
Yes, they did remember the Habitable Zone (not "Middle" Zone)... though it may turn out to be uninhabited, depending upon how generation proceeds. It might also turn out to contain multiple occupied orbits, potentially as many as four, which I personally think is likely to be rather a stretch.
I'll have to look at it more closely, but it looks like the Habitable Zone has about a 44% chance of being untenanted, just off the cuff, with larger numbers being rarer, down to about an 5.6% chance of four occupied habitable orbits (a roll of 1-6 or 6-1 on 2D6). Seems to me that having orbits 2 through 5 in or very close to the liquid water zone of the system requires either said zone to be ridiculously wide or the specified orbits to be unrealistically (and dangerously!) close together.
Galadrion said:
Argh. They'd better remember it for the World Builders Book then - Mars currently does not have an Orbital Zone in Traveller! (it's not Habitable Zone, and it's not Outer Zone (where gas giants accrete) - it's between the two, hence "Middle Zone"). The region between the habitable and outer zones is sufficiently different from the other orbital zones that it warrants its own one.
Four habitable planets is a huge stretch - the only stars likely to have wide habitable zones are the ones that can't actually support life (i.e. the ones with higher luminosity). At most you'd get two planets in the habitable zone - one at the extreme inner edge and one at the extreme outer edge, so they're probably not actually all that habitable.
And of course, just because it's in the habitable zone doesn't mean it's actually a shirtsleeve worlx.
EDG said:
Considering that Loz and CaptainJack were focusing mainly on life-suitability in their categorizations, I'd say that Mars and Venus are both borderline so far as the Habitable Zone is concerned - Venus on the Inner Zone border, and Mars on the Outer, though Mars is probably a little closer to actually "habitable". Neither planet is actually particularly hospitable to life as we know it, though if you make allowances for what we're not entirely certain of, either or both could support life as we would recognize it - possibly.
Loz and the Captain also haven't "hardcoded" their system to lock gas giants in the Outer System, either (although there is a distinct bias that direction). The important thing to recognize, however, is that this is not an astrophysics text - it's a game system, and it's not going to conform 100% to reality, or even reality as we know it. (Are you willing to give up your jump drives merely for verisimilitude?) If the system works well enough, use it. If it doesn't, house-rule something... and if you feel it's up to withstanding criticism, bring it to the rest of us! Who knows? You might get offered a paying gig if you impress the right people - it's happened before...
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Galadrion said:
Yes, very likely true. I'm not going to get into a discussion about likely orbit sizes or spacing, as that was way far away from being the goal of the system. PLUS, I don't have the background to answer the question...
Also, keep in mind that the 5% estimate needs to modified by the liklihood that the system will have 6+ orbits. Base number is 1d6 (jump shadow)+1d6(random); so 10/36 don't even have that many bodies that are worth noting (see the definition of what is being rolled), so really about 1.5% is the correct estimate to have four habitable orbits) and about 1/4 of them will be belts - not good, I admit in a close orbit, but worth buying a ticket for
)Here's the main point, though:
Zones, as used here are not the actual scientific definitions, anyway -they correspond more to the "HOT, Cold Just right" descriptions noted in the core book. Sol has three planets which fit that description (Venus = last hot*, Mars = first cold/very cold).
As to the four orbit hab zone, a fuzzy (ie non-techincally precise) zone definition allows lots of lattitude for declaring them farther in or out as needed. OR, alternately, not using it as rolled.
So, as it is presented and described, it's not an unsupervised system for generating detailed accurate data. that's for another book. What it will generate is a system with the mainworld in the habitable zone almost 60% of the time (using your figures, don't have immediate access to mine), or in the last hot orbit or the first cold orbit, for most situations. And give you some locations for fuel (GGiants) and SF resources (belts). EOF
* I think Venus, simply going by orbit, is in the habitable zone, anyway; it's the atmospheric effects that make it a hellworld -correct ? Mars is, IIRC, outside the hab zone.
captainjack23 said:Also, keep in mind that the 5% estimate needs to modified by the liklihood that the system will have 6+ orbits.
*Snip*
Here's the main point, though:
Zones, as used here are not the actual scientific definitions, anyway -they correspond more to the "HOT, Cold Just right" descriptions noted in the core book. Sol has three planets which fit that description (Venus = last hot*, Mars = first cold/very cold).
As to the four orbit hab zone, a fuzzy (ie non-techincally precise) zone definition allows lots of lattitude for declaring them farther in or out as needed. OR, alternately, not using it as rolled.
So, as it is presented and described, it's not an unsupervised system for generating detailed accurate data. that's for another book. What it will generate is a system with the mainworld in the habitable zone almost 60% of the time (using your figures, don't have immediate access to mine), or in the last hot orbit or the first cold orbit, for most situations. And give you some locations for fuel (GGiants) and SF resources (belts). EOF
* I think Venus, simply going by orbit, is in the habitable zone, anyway; it's the atmospheric effects that make it a hellworld -correct ? Mars is, IIRC, outside the hab zone.
True about the available orbits; as I said, I was just going on an "off the cuff" estimate. That probably brings it down to about 4%, or a small amount lower.
Good point about it not being an unsupervised system, and closely related to my own point. This is a quick-start, inspirational system to give the ref a starting position from which to work. It's not a be-all and end-all astrophysics simulation system, and (as explicitly stated in the text!) is not intended even to accurately model reality. Personally, I think it succeeds pretty well within this remit.
As for Mars falling outside the habitable zone, well, by your own "hot, cold, just right" definition, Mars is probably more habitable than Venus, and probably more easily terraformable. I'd rule that it qualified, in my opinion.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
EDG said:
You don't actually have Scouts yet, right ?
Worry not. It's explicitly not going to substitute or inform the detailed system. The description goes into detail about how this is a quick n easy, not a substitute for a "real" system.
This is a chart, not a map. It's all about assisting travel, not a scientific survey.
We are charting only the significant bits that effect players and give scenery. (define significant yourself)
The realism it is built on is:
- Planets go round a sun.
Some are hot, some are cold, some are gas giants or belts.
Mainworlds are more likely to be in the "just right" zone, but not at all exclusively, given habitability isn't as influenced by nature in SF.
Stars have a jump shadow that is important to play.
The Mainworld location is important to play.
Gas Giants are important to play.
Belts are either cool scenery or important to play.
The numbers pulled out of a hat:
- Stars with bigger jump shadows may have more planets, but not horrendously so.
Use of a D6 to provide numbers.
That is about it.
captainjack23 said:
No, I'm just asking what it's based on. I suppose that eventually I'll see the published version (this is one book I may be tempted to pick up, depending on how many glaring layout errors surface).
I'll have to see the results it generates before I can opinionate properly. But it sounds like it was developed based on something that "felt right" rather than by fully generating systems and simplifying things down to see how many planets on average fell in each zone or within the jump shadow.
